Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 22:40:45 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7ec2e83bc35a92bb7c5f7c9c7a9aa333da125931@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs71bq$2p360$10@dont-email.me>
 <vs76m9$3m3q0$1@dont-email.me> <vs77th$2p360$11@dont-email.me>
 <vs78cu$3ms9k$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
 <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me> <vs7r9b$8ajp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs92l3$1fccq$5@dont-email.me> <vs93ae$1k9u2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9g5p$1v2n9$5@dont-email.me> <vs9gcg$20g2j$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs9h9o$23cav$2@dont-email.me> <vs9hh3$20g2j$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs9jie$23cav$4@dont-email.me> <vs9kb1$26cg5$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9pni$27rl4$9@dont-email.me>
 <3ade9e84224ba9b99c7363e0e9b69181804b7daa@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc2fd$1vihj$2@dont-email.me>
 <e1da7d564873d36f88e119fbbbdafd8c6b0f675e@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc9o7$2bk3d$2@dont-email.me>
 <e8a1a71c83ab391210359dec64ecf493433c813c@i2pn2.org>
 <vsceml$2fv3s$3@dont-email.me>
 <37611dde484778110d639014703daac38129f076@i2pn2.org>
 <vsctva$2ub5m$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 02:40:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2476048"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vsctva$2ub5m$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6215
Lines: 107

On 3/30/25 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/30/2025 7:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/30/25 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2025 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/25 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/30/2025 1:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/30/25 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 3:12 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:46:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:14 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can know that when this adapted UTM simulates a finite 
>>>>>>>>>>> number of
>>>>>>>>>>> steps of its input that this finite number of steps were 
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly.
>>>>>>>>>> And therefore does not do a correct UTM simulation that 
>>>>>>>>>> matches the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the direct execution as it is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>> It is dishonest to expect non-terminating inputs to complete.
>>>>>>>> A complete simulation of a nonterminating input doesn't halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) changing the input is not allowed
>>>>>>>>>>> The input is unchanged. There never was any indication that 
>>>>>>>>>>> the input
>>>>>>>>>>> was in any way changed.
>>>>>>>>>> False, if the starting function calls UTM and UTM changes, you're
>>>>>>>>>> changing the input.
>>>>>>>>> When UTM1 is a UTM that has been adapted to only simulate a finite
>>>>>>>>> number of steps
>>>>>>>> So not an UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and input D calls UTM1 then the behavior of D simulated
>>>>>>>>> by UTM1 never reaches its final halt state.
>>>>>>>>> When D is simulated by ordinary UTM2 that D does not call Then 
>>>>>>>>> D reaches
>>>>>>>>> its final halt state.
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter if it calls it, but if the UTM halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>>>>> I never changed the input. D always calls UTM1.
>>>>>>>>> thus is the same input to UTM1 as it is to UTM2.
>>>>>>>> You changed UTM1, which is part of the input D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UTM1 simulates D that calls UTM1
>>>>>>> simulated D NEVER reaches final halt state
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UTM2 simulates D that calls UTM1
>>>>>>> simulated D ALWAYS reaches final halt state
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only because UTM1 isn't actually a UTM, but a LIE since it only 
>>>>>> does a partial simulation, not a complete as REQURIED by the 
>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES SPECIFY THAT IT
>>>>> CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL HALT STATE.
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS AND ANYONE THAT DISAGREES
>>>>> IS A DAMNED LIAR OR STUPID.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How is that DDD correctly emulated beyond the call HHH instruction 
>>>> by a program that is a pure function, and thus only looks at its input?
>>>>
>>>
>>> *THE ENTIRE SCOPE IS*
>>> DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES SPECIFY THAT IT
>>> CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL HALT STATE.
>>
>>  From where? Remember, the Halting problem is SPECIFICALLY 
> 
> OFF F-CKING TOPIC. WE ABOUT ONE F-CKING STEP OF MY PROOF.
> WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ONE F-CKING STEP OF MY PROOF
> FOR THREE F-CKING YEARS.
> 
> DDD correctly emulated by HHH DOES NOT F-CKING HALT !!!
> 
> 

Your proof is just off topic ranting.

The problem is that DDD is NOT correctly emulated by HHH, so your 
statement is just a LIE based on a false definition and is even 
contradictory with itself due to a category error.

When your criteria is a lie, your proof is irrelevant.


All you have proved is that you are too stupid to understand the error 
that you have been making for those three years, because you failed to 
learn the definitions that you need to follow to do your proof.

Sorry, you are just cementing your reputation to the bottom of the like 
of fire, and following it to the bottom.